Page 53 - Pure Life 34
P. 53
/
(
52 International Multi. J. of PURE LIFE. 10(34), Spring. 2023
“<va”, “vb>” is a member of these sorts of approach. He
the set of pairs, “vR”. might have objected that
Fuzzy logic may be given a fuzzy identity is not real
similar semantics, but one identity.
that allows for fuzzy set Real identity, as Evans
membership, so that “<va”, argued, is governed by the
“vb>” can be a member of rule that allows that from
“v=” to some extent, so that “a=b”, we can substitute “a”
the value of an identity for “b” in any (extensional)
statement will be an “sftv”. In formula in which it occurs
this case, the fuzziness of an while maintaining the validity
identity statement will be due of the arguments in which
to the fuzziness of the they occur. From “b” is
interpretation of identity. incorporeal and “a=b”, we
To apply a constraint Smith should be able to conclude
suggests for fuzzy that “a” is incorporeal.
plurivaluationism to the case Graham Priest has argued
of identity, if “a” and “b” are that the substitutivity rule
very similar with regard to needs to be restricted for
their identity conditions, fuzzy identity, and to insist on
“v(a=a)” and “v(a=b)” must its being unrestricted begs the
be very similar in respect of question against fuzzy relativity.
truth on every acceptable (Priest, 1998; Ibid, 2008)
model, given that identity is Furthermore, substitutivity is
taken to be a vague predicate. already restricted to extensional
(Smith, 2015: Vol. 3: 1272) contexts; so, one cannot argue
It seems that Allamah Misbah that identity requires unrestricted
would not be persuaded by substitutivity.
